Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I have had numerous people over the years contact me stating “Your 71 has been refinished, the 71 serial numbers were stamped after bluing!”. I have even had a disagreement with a customer and they took the rifle to Turnbull (they lived relatively close in NY) and someone at Turnbull did in fact tell them that the rifle WAS reblued. Actually, their website has that exact info and photos listed on the model 71 info page (shown below). But it wasn’t reblued… None of them I am referring to had ever been reblued. I need to clear up a misconception about very late model 71 serial numbers. Once you get above approx. the 40,000 serial number range… all bets are off. Most have been blued after stamping, some even being buffed over and look horrible. Some still have a little deformation in the metal. Actually… (here we go, I will get flamed for this)… I have noticed a lot of factory original rifles were proofed prior to final polish and bluing. The barrels, not the case but the receivers were. I know, I know, “they were fully assembled and proof tested, how can this be?!” Well, I cannot answer that but I know a good Winchester when I see one having owned thousands and looking at tens of thousands. There is another story here. Once you start looking for it, you will see it as well. In fact, a lot of mod 94, 61, 62, and 63’s are the same way. Many “late” guns were proofed prior to polish and bluing at the factory. So in conclusion, after c.1955, one has to take the blinders off. Many original Winchesters look refinished based on the main tried and true indicators (serial numbers and proof marks).
All of the photos below are just a sample from my archives of factory original rifles. The photos you see will lead you to deny this. But I hope you can trust my opinonion, none of these below were reblued.
Here are some examples of other proof marks. Notice the barrel is stamped after final polish and bluing and the receiver, well… that is up for debate. Now, remember this goes both ways. Some will be found stamped after polish and bluing as well.
Austinsguns said
I have had numerous people over the years contact me stating “Your 71 has been refinished, the 71 serial numbers were stamped after bluing!”. I have even had a disagreement with a customer and they took the rifle to Turnbull (they lived relatively close in NY) and someone at Turnbull did in fact tell them that the rifle WAS reblued. Actually, their website has that exact info and photos listed on the model 71 info page (shown below). But it wasn’t reblued… None of them I am referring to had ever been reblued. I need to clear up a misconception about very late model 71 serial numbers. Once you get above approx. the 40,000 serial number range… all bets are off. Most have been blued after stamping, some even being buffed over and look horrible. Some still have a little deformation in the metal. Actually… (here we go, I will get flamed for this)… I have noticed a lot of factory original rifles were proofed prior to final polish and bluing. The barrels, not the case but the receivers were. I know, I know, “they were fully assembled and proof tested, how can this be?!” Well, I cannot answer that but I know a good Winchester when I see one having owned thousands and looking at tens of thousands. There is another story here. Once you start looking for it, you will see it as well. In fact, a lot of mod 94, 61, 62, and 63’s are the same way. Many “late” guns were proofed prior to polish and bluing at the factory. So in conclusion, after c.1955, one has to take the blinders off. Many original Winchesters look refinished based on the main tried and true indicators (serial numbers and proof marks).
All of the photos below are just a sample from my archives of factory original rifles. The photos you see will lead you to deny this. But I hope you can trust my opinonion, none of these below were reblued.
Unfortunately, I do not trust your opinion on this topic. Like you, I have handled and inspected many thousands of Winchesters over that past 45-years, and based on the many years of research & study I have completed on just the Model 71, I can state with greater than 99% assurity that Winchester did not change their production steps in regard to the serial number and proof mark application, and that they most certainly did not use one set of production steps on one rifle and then on very next gun do it differently. The pictures I have attached are all Model 71s in the 40,000+ serial number range, and more importantly, they are all 100% factory original rifles.
Keep in mind that there are a few very talented people out there that can refinish & restore old Winchesters to the point of being nearly undetectable.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Glad to see you posting again on here Austin. The two above opposite viewpoints just stress for me the difficulty of determining originality sometimes, even when you’re holding the damn thing. I too get suspicious the older/closer it is to the named 1955 cutoff, newer guns I expect to see blued after stamping.
Very interesting and look forward to y’all debating! 
Bert, Thanks for the reply.
I know you think i’m off base but, do see this a lot on high condition seemingly all original late model 71s. If we compare a bunch of high original condition late 71’s we will see a trend.
After the mid 1950s, lots of odd things happened on all models. Speaking of proof marks… Who has a high original condition original late production model 61 to share? How come nearly all the proof marks look buffed over? These below are just from the last few months and all came from all over the country, not bubbas work shop. All 320k+ Serial numbers. They are original finish. But even with a loupe, they looked buffed over. I have hundereds this way in my files.
Maybe its just the way these were struck/marked? Seems logical they would ONLY be proof tested after assembly, I am not arguing that. I am just starting a discussion that I see a trend. Either I do not see the burnishing with my eyes of post-bluing stamping. Or something was going on where these rifles saw some finish work after assembly and proofing… At Winchester, not by bubba 50+ years later. We are not talking about bubba guns. I see plenty of those as well in my travels.
Just passing on what I see. These late guns HAVE to be treated different than the early guns when determining originality. My .02…
Austinsguns said
I have had numerous people over the years contact me stating “Your 71 has been refinished, the 71 serial numbers were stamped after bluing!”.
Excuse me. I’m confused by the remark you’ve quoted, in which the speaker accuses your Model 71 of having been reblued because the receiver was first blued before the serial was struck [which would cause the digits to show a gray halo by being struck through the blue.]
According to Bert’s research, such presence of gray halos surrounding the serial digits would prove the converse, that the rifle’s blue finish was original. Per Bert, Winchester consistently blued Model 71 receivers and then struck the serials, so the absence of gray halos surrounding the serial digits would prove the rifle had been reblued.
My understanding of your argument is you have observed Model 71 rifles bearing serials in the 40,000 range and higher, the original bluing of which rifles was applied after their serial numbers had been struck. You illustrate your argument with images of receivers bearing unhaloed serial numbers you say were not struck through a blue finish that you are certain is original.
I don’t have the inclination or the expertise to argue with you. I just don’t understand the purpose of your opening illustration.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Online
This thread is an excellent reference, original Model 71s in Bert’s post and reblued ones in the OPs post. I think the quality of the photographs provided by both could be a basis for a short article in the magazine.
Very interesting. I’m still digesting. I am mulling over the comments n rifles that are known to be original. My question is how can we, “know” any of these rifles are original? As has been stated, there are fakers out there with supreme talent and expertise. Perhaps a rifle that had been never sold and retained by the Winchester factory for decades and then was transferred to the Cody museum (with supporting documention)… but short of that, how could we know with certainty?
Steve004 has nailed the real question: “How can we know which of these rifles are ‘original'”?
With the last of the Model 71 rifles rolling off the line ca 1958, few who are alive today were old enough to purchase one new. Which brings up the question of provenance. My father or grandfather could certainly have purchased a new Model 71, but they have been dead for decades. (In 1958 I was still in diapers.) So any Model 71 I might acquire has a lot of unknowns in its history that I can never know. Who owned it? Was it refinished? If so, when and by whom? The guns themselves are mute to our questions.
So just because someone says their rifle is “original” does not make it so. Only iron clad provenance can answer that question. Lacking that, as most of these rifles do all these years later, all we have to go on is the knowledge that Bert shared about Winchester’s production methods. Personally, I will stick with what Bert has shared as the court of final appeal in questions of originality.
BRP
Ok. I am focusing my discussion on very high condition rifles, the only ones where you can see the stampings without much wear. Very late 71s serial numbers APPEAR to me to have been stamped prior to bluing. Were they stamped after bluing like Bert says and they just do not flake around the deformed metal? Is it just lack if wear on these high condition examples? I don’t know. Thats why we are here. Most have the deformation in the metal, so no “Buffing” was likely done. But I have seen some seemingly original examples have been buffed flat as well. Bert’s examples are lower condition guns, I cannot tell the difference in flaking form stamping after bluing or just high edge wear due to the serial numbers having raised metal to wear.
Ok, lets look at a subject rifle and critique it for being refinished. No armchair quaterbacks please, only seasoned / knowledgable collectors need reply.
This is the best late deluxe I’ve ever had. A total time capsule in my opinion, not a thing wrong with it (until a parcel service broke the stock toe off in shipping, but thats another story). From a small collection not a large auction house or anything like that.
Those are nice photos, but with all due respect, they completely sidestep the key question of epistomology: to wit, “How do you KNOW what you claim to know?” Or put another way, “How do you distinguish fact from opinion.?” You believe the subject rifle above to be original. I accept that, but that is an opinion. But the fact of the matter may be quite different.
Until an original owner shows up (who would be quite elderly), who can say, “I bought this rifle new in the 1950’s, left it in a dark closet and never used it, and I have never had it refinished” then the question remains: “How do you know what you claim to know?” Austin’s argument seems to be, “Well, I can just tell by looking.” Maybe, and maybe not. There are people today who can refinish guns with complete accuracy and authenticity of the original finish. (There is a cottage industry doing exactly that with Model 70 rifles and Model 61 rifles.) Lacking definitive proof, I will still side with Bert who points to the factory processes and procedures, which can in fact be documented. Other opinions are certainly welcome—- but that is what they are: opinions.
BRP
I borrowed one of Austin’s pictures, edited it a bit (cropped it to make it a bit larger and easier to see), and have put it with one of my photos.
Austin’s picture is S/N 45834, and my picture is S/N 45845 (just 11 digits later). Take note that the periphery of the numerals on 45834 are soft and slightly rounded (specifically on the “5” digit and the “4” digit). This is the evidence that the receiver frame was lightly buffed and then reblued.
On S/N 45845, the hallowing surrounding each digit in the serial number is clearly evident. Based on the condition of S/N 45845, it is clearly evident that it has not been refinished.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
All in all, this topic has just made collecting 71’s a bit more confusing.
Bert H. said
I borrowed one of Austin’s pictures, edited it a bit (cropped it to make it a bit larger and easier to see), and have put it with one of my photos.Austin’s picture is S/N 45834, and my picture is S/N 45845 (just 11 digits later). Take note that the periphery of the numerals on 45834 are soft and slightly rounded (specifically on the “5” digit and the “4” digit). This is the evidence that the receiver frame was lightly buffed and then reblued.
On S/N 45845, the hallowing surrounding each digit in the serial number is clearly evident. Based on the condition of S/N 45845, it is clearly evident that it has not been refinished.
Bert, I do not see any more rounding of the letters than your example 45845. In fact, your example is so worn that it can hardly be a comparison. I see raised metal from stamping on both examples with metal deformation, and one with lots of wear on said raised metal. How can you say that when your example was 97-98% condition, it did not look like my example 45834? The reason I posted all of these photos is to show the big picture… A really honest high condition 71 rifle. Had I not shown you the close up of ther serial number, you likely would have said it was original finish. (I know, I cannot speak for anyone). And in hand these look even better. Pictues only go so far. I am waiting to find a minty late rifle with the “common” halo/flaking/burnishing seen on serial numbers stamped after bluing, But I have not come accross one. And thats the trend I have seen and why I brought this up. I could be way off on this!
No, we cannot say anything for certain… I am just giving my opinion. This is a forum.
I appreciate all the knowledge shared here. Bert and Austin have extensive knowledge and experience on this subject. They are a couple of the most learned men out there and I consider them true experts.
As I process this, I think of the field of science. In science, there has never been a scientific theory that has been proven true. Rather, it becomes the prevailing theory until the next (better) prevailing theory comes along and replaces it. This is not the same as facts and facts can be proven true (i.e. some facts).
There may be, “provenance” with a rifle where, say a relative from way back, notarizes a statement that serves to legitimize the rifle. This is not a rare occurrence as many rifles offered for sale have such provenance. Which sometimes results in the buyer asking how much just for the rifle.
The opportunity to truly, “know” something is not as common as we would like.
With regards the rifle presented by the OP to critique, if you have looked at enough of these, it’s apparent, in addition to the lack of haloes surrounding the serial number that it has been reblued for the following reasons:
1. The hue of the bluing is slightly different from that typical of the era;
2. The mirror finish and overall quality of the polishing and other finish work exceeds that produced by Winchester and the typical marks produced by Winchester are absent. In other words, too much effort was used to make this one seem original.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi All-
I’ll be first to admit that I am not qualified to be an “armchair quarterback” beyond the fact that I am sitting in an armchair as I write this… 
But something puzzles me and I thought I’d ask…
Bert’s assertion, as far as I can tell, is that M71 receivers manufactured in toward the end of their production (mid to late 1950s) were serial numbered AFTER the (otherwise finished) receiver had received final polish and blue. Hence the “cratered” serial number stamp and “halo” appearing on rifles that have been carried enough to wear the “high spots”…
My question(s) are… What documentation (in terms of factory work process change order for example) supports the contention that M71 receivers were polished/blued and THEN serial numbered? Where there other Winchester Models made at the time, that were known to be serialized after leaving the Polishing Room for blue? Were they then returned to the Polishing Room for serial number application? On the rifles said to have seen serialized AFTER blue, are the “craters” left by the serial number stamps unblued? Seems we look for this on proof marks (which were applied after bluing), don’t we? Anyone have a “NIB” late M71 with the serial number itself in the white???
Is it not possible (???) that the mid-1950s change related to the amount of effort spent POLISHING a serialized receiver before it was sent for blue??? If the serial number was applied before blue, but quickly/haphazardly polished, would that not leave “raised” metal that would wear unevenly and create the “halo” Bert’s using as evidence that they were numbered after bluing? A striking thing here, with all the quality pics posted by both Bert and Austin, is that Bert’s examples have been carried and Austin’s are pristine… If someone were to take one of Autsin’s guns and carry it around by the belly for a few weeks, might it not end up looking like one of Bert’s reference photos?
I guess I’m just confused… 
Pre-64 Model 70s, as far as we (I) know, were all serialized BEFORE final polish and blue. But, of course, the receivers also got bead blasted between serial number application and blue. So I don’t see “cratered” M70 serial numbers (even in 1963)… Some M70 BARREL stamps OTOH might look like Bert’s M71 serial number “halos” with surface wear…
Forgive my ignorance…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
mrcvs said
With regards the rifle presented by the OP to critique, if you have looked at enough of these, it’s apparent, in addition to the lack of haloes surrounding the serial number that it has been reblued for the following reasons:1. The hue of the bluing is slightly different from that typical of the era;
2. The mirror finish and overall quality of the polishing and other finish work exceeds that produced by Winchester and the typical marks produced by Winchester are absent. In other words, too much effort was used to make this one seem original.
Regarding the finish comment… You must not spend much time around high condition 71s. For reasons unknown later in production they were polished finer like the model 61s and model 62s, not course like 94s, 64s and 63s… And yes there is a difference in polish between models. The finer polish was almost mirror like with hardly any striations or grain.
Louis Luttrell said
Hi All-I’ll be first to admit that I am not qualified to be an “armchair quarterback” beyond the fact that I am sitting in an armchair as I write this…
Bert’s assertion, as far as I can tell, is that M71 receivers manufactured in toward the end of their production (mid to late 1950s) were serial numbered AFTER the (otherwise finished) receiver had received final polish and blue. Hence the “cratered” serial number stamp and “halo” appearing on rifles that have been carried enough to wear the “high spots”…
My question(s) are… What documentation (in terms of factory work process change order for example) supports the contention that M71 receivers were polished/blued and THEN serial numbered? Where there other Winchester Models made at the time, that were known to be serialized after leaving the Polishing Room for blue? Were they then returned to the Polishing Room for serial number application? On the rifles said to have seen serialized AFTER blue, are the “craters” left by the serial number stamps unblued? Seems we look for this on proof marks (which were applied after bluing), don’t we? Anyone have a “NIB” late M71 with the serial number itself in the white???
Is it not possible (???) that the mid-1950s change related to the amount of effort spent POLISHING a serialized receiver before it was sent for blue??? If the serial number was applied before blue, but quickly/haphazardly polished, would that not leave “raised” metal that would wear unevenly and create the “halo” Bert’s using as evidence that they were numbered after bluing? A striking thing here, with all the quality pics posted by both Bert and Austin, is that Bert’s examples have been carried and Austin’s are pristine… If someone were to take one of Autsin’s guns and carry it around by the belly for a few weeks, might it not end up looking like one of Bert’s reference photos?
I guess I’m just confused…
Forgive my ignorance…
Lou, I believe you’ve misstated Bert’s position, which is set out in his article on the Winchester Model 71 in the Summer 2021 edition of the Collector, at page 10 et seq.
Showing examples from very early, intermediate, and late production, all the illustrated serials in the article [see page 21] show evidence of having been cut through the bluing. Bert asserts that process was used to serialize all M71 production, without exception.
It is the OP who asserts the process varied in the case of late production. In the circumstances, I think the burden of producing factory change orders would be on the OP.
With reference to Bert’s illustrated 45845 rifle, I don’t see why “ordinary wear” – some of which already appears on the receiver at the carry point – would track so carefully around the outline of each numeral, even allowing that the surface of the steel is higher there from having been raised by the roll die.
Here is what I believe to be a very lightly used M71 receiver that shows little to no carry wear on its receiver bottom, yet shows the gray halo outlining the edges of the rolled serial digits. 
if this serial had been applied before bluing, it would not look like this.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Zebulon said
Louis Luttrell said
Hi All-
I’ll be first to admit that I am not qualified to be an “armchair quarterback” beyond the fact that I am sitting in an armchair as I write this…
Bert’s assertion, as far as I can tell, is that M71 receivers manufactured in toward the end of their production (mid to late 1950s) were serial numbered AFTER the (otherwise finished) receiver had received final polish and blue. Hence the “cratered” serial number stamp and “halo” appearing on rifles that have been carried enough to wear the “high spots”…
My question(s) are… What documentation (in terms of factory work process change order for example) supports the contention that M71 receivers were polished/blued and THEN serial numbered? Where there other Winchester Models made at the time, that were known to be serialized after leaving the Polishing Room for blue? Were they then returned to the Polishing Room for serial number application? On the rifles said to have seen serialized AFTER blue, are the “craters” left by the serial number stamps unblued? Seems we look for this on proof marks (which were applied after bluing), don’t we? Anyone have a “NIB” late M71 with the serial number itself in the white???
Is it not possible (???) that the mid-1950s change related to the amount of effort spent POLISHING a serialized receiver before it was sent for blue??? If the serial number was applied before blue, but quickly/haphazardly polished, would that not leave “raised” metal that would wear unevenly and create the “halo” Bert’s using as evidence that they were numbered after bluing? A striking thing here, with all the quality pics posted by both Bert and Austin, is that Bert’s examples have been carried and Austin’s are pristine… If someone were to take one of Autsin’s guns and carry it around by the belly for a few weeks, might it not end up looking like one of Bert’s reference photos?
I guess I’m just confused…
Forgive my ignorance…
Lou, I believe you’ve misstated Bert’s position, which is set out in his article on the Winchester Model 71 in the Summer 2021 edition of the Collector, at page 10 et seq.
Showing examples from very early, intermediate, and late production, all the illustrated serials in the article [see page 21] show evidence of having been cut through the bluing. Bert asserts that process was used to serialize all M71 production, without exception.
It is the OP who asserts the process varied in the case of late production. In the circumstances, I think the burden of producing factory change orders would be on the OP.
With reference to Bert’s illustrated 45845 rifle, I don’t see why “ordinary wear” – some of which already appears on the receiver at the carry point – would track so carefully around the outline of each numeral, even allowing that the surface of the steel is higher there from having been raised by the roll die.
Here is what I believe to be a very lightly used M71 receiver that shows little to no carry wear on its receiver bottom, yet shows the gray halo outlining the edges of the rolled serial digits.
Thanks. Your photos support my theory in that even though a rifle remains in high condition, the “halos” around the serial numbers will exist from the stamping after finish process. And I have never seen a very late rifle in high original condition with these halos.
Here are a few earlier production examples in good+ condition from this year so far.
1 Guest(s)
